High CourtsSingle Bench

Moshu Ram vs Prem Sukh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 23 April 2021 · Citation: (2021) 04 SHI CK 0207

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 227 · Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 8 Rule 6A
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
CMPMO No.139 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 402 words

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

1.

Defendant's right to lead evidence has been closed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.03.2018, therefore, he has invoked the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2.

The respondent had filed the civil suit for vacant possession of the suit land. The present petitioner also filed counter claim under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure against the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.05.1985. After recording that the defendant failed to adduce the evidence despite having been granted more than twelve opportunities, learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.03.2018, closed the evidence of defendant/counter claimant. This order has been impugned herein.

3.

On 23.04.2018, notices were issued in the instant petition and further proceedings pending before the learned Court below were ordered to be stayed. The notices were duly served upon the respondent. However, none has put in appearance. Even post-admission service has been effected upon the respondent, however, he has chosen not to contest the petition.

4.

The order of learned Trial Court, closing the evidence of the defendant cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity since the defendant had failed to adduce the evidence despite having been granted sufficient opportunities as recorded in the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant belonging to IRDP category, may not be put to hardships on account of inactions alleged on part of learned counsel representing him. Be that as it may. Fact remains that the defendant is also a counter claimant. Further proceedings in the Court below were stayed by the order of this Court as far back as on 23.04.2018. The respondent has chosen not to contest this petition. Considering all these aspects, in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience, the petitioner/ defendant is granted one last opportunity to adduce his evidence before the learned Court below at the cost of Rs.2500/- payable to the plaintiff/ respondent. Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 20.05.2021, when a date shall be fixed by the learned Trial Court for recording the evidence of the petitioner/defendant. It is however made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the defendant to lead his evidence.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.